Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Antioch, Kathryn M; Drummond, Michael F; Niessen, Louis W; Vondeling, Hindrik (2017)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: O320: management of technological innovation and R&D, Health Policy, I1: health, Review, qy_4, wa_30, D61: cost benefit analysis, I180: Health-Government policy, Regulation, Public health, wa_530, RA
Economic evidence is influential in health technology assessment world-wide. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) can enable economists to include economic information on health care provision. Application of economic evidence in CPGs, and its integration into clinical practice and national decision making is hampered by objections from professions, paucity of economic evidence or lack of policy commitment. The use of state-of-art economic methodologies will improve this. Economic evidence can be graded by ‘checklists’ to establish the best evidence for decision making given methodological rigor. New economic evaluation checklists, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) and other decision criteria enable health economists to impact on decision making world-wide. We analyse the methodologies for integrating economic evidence into CPG agencies globally, including the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the USA, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian political reforms. The Guidelines and Economists Network International (GENI) Board members from Australia, UK, Canada and Denmark presented the findings at the conference of the International Health Economists Association (IHEA) and we report conclusions and developments since. The Consolidated Guidelines for the Reporting of Economic Evaluations (CHEERS) 24 item check list can be used by AHRQ, NHMRC, other CPG and health organisations, in conjunction with the Drummond ten-point check list and a questionnaire that scores that checklist for grading studies, when assessing economic evidence. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) thresholds, opportunity cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) are crucial issues for decision rules in CEA generally, including end-of-life therapies. Limitations of inter-rater reliability in checklists can be addressed by including more than one assessor to reach a consensus, especially when impacting on treatment decisions. We identify priority areas to generate economic evidence for CPGs by NHMRC, AHRQ, and other agencies. The evidence may cover demand for care issues such as involved time, logistics, innovation price, price sensitivity, substitutes and complements, WTP, absenteeism and presentism. Supply issues may include economies of scale, efficiency changes, and return on investment. Involved equity and efficiency measures may include cost-of-illness, disease burden, quality-of-life, budget impact, cost-effective ratios, net benefits and disparities in access and outcomes. Priority setting remains essential and trade-off decisions between policy criteria can be based on MCDA, both in evidence based clinical medicine and in health planning. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-017-0063-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). National Health Reform Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australian and State and Territory Governments. 2011. http://www.federalnfiancialrelations.gov.au/content/ npa/health_reform/national-agreement.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 2. Antioch KM. Integrating Economic and Clinical Evidence, Guidelines and Equity into National Regulation and Financing: Reforms for the Australian Health Care Agreements (AHCA): 2009 and Beyond. Paper to Council of Australian Government (COAG), State and Federal stakeholders. Published by National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) and Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) with permission of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/297-interim/%24FILE/298%20-%20Submission%20-%20%20Dr%20Kathryn%20Antioch.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 3. Antioch KM. Intergovernmental agreements: update on reforms on risk adjustment of health funding and evidence based medicine (EBM) Implementation. Paper to COAG; State and Federal stakeholders (Published by NHHRC and DOHA with permission of DPMC). 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/297- interim/%24FILE/297%20-%20Submission%20-%20%20Dr%20Kathryn%20Antioch.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 4. Antioch KM. COAG: April 2010 update on reforms on activity based funding, risk adjustment and evidence based medicine (EBM) implementation'. Paper to COAG; State and Federal stakehoders for April 2010 COAG meeting, Canberra. (Submission published by Australian Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee). 2010a. See Submission 20 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/coag_health_reforms/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 5. NHMRC. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 1999. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp30.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 6. NHMRC. How to put the evidence into practice: implementation and dissemination strategies Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines. Canberra National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000a. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp71.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 7. NHMRC. How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000b. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp65.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 8. NHMRC. How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000c. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp69.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 9. NHMRC. How to compare the costs and benefits: evaluation of the economic evidence Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines, Canberra National Health and Medical Research Council. 2001. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp73.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 10. Antioch KM, Jennings G, Botti M, Chapman R and Wulfsohn V. 'Integrating cost-eefctiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines in Australia for Acute Myocardial Infarction'. Eur J Health Eco. 2002;3:26-39. http://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/s10198-001-0088-z. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 11. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, Stoddart GL, O'Brien B. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    • 12. Antioch KM, Ellis RP, Gillett S, et al. Risk adjustment Policy Options for Casemix Funding: International Lessons in Financing Reforms. Eur J Health Eco. 2007;8: 195-212. http://people.bu.edu/ellisrp/EllisPapers/2007_AntiochEllisGillett_EJHE_RiskAdj.pdf.
    • 13. Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA), 2015 National Ecfiient Price (NEP) Determination 2015-2016. 2015. https://www.ihpa.gov.au/sites/g/ lifes/net636/f/publications/national-ecfiient-price-determination-2015-16. pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 14. Antioch KM. Invited Submission to the Senate Community Afairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2011a. See Submission 14 http://www.aph.gov.au/ Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/nhpa/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 15. Antioch KM. Submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2011b. See Submission 14 http://www.aph.gov. au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/Completed%20inquiries/2010-13/indhospitalpricingauthority/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 16. Economics Legislation Senate Committee. Senate Committee Report Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill 2010 [provisions] pp. 9-10. 2011. http://www.aph.gov. au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/healthfinance10/report/index. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 17. Antioch KM. Submission to the Senate Economics Committee Inquiry into the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill 2010. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2010b. See Submission 1 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Completed%20inquiries/2010-13/healthfinance10/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 18. Antioch KM. Submission to the Senate Community Afairs Refer - ences Committee Inquiry into Palliative Care in Australia. (Published by Parliament). 2012a. See Submission 137 http://www.aph.gov.au/ Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/palliativecare/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 19. Senate Community Afairs Reference Committee. Senate Committee Report on Palliative Care in Australia. (Published by Parliament). 2012. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/ Community_Afairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/palliativecare/report/ index. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 20. Antioch KM. Submission to the Senate Community Afairs References Committee Inquiry into the Factors Aefcting the Supply of Health Services and Medical Professionals in Rural Areas. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2012b. See submission 132. http://www.aph.gov.au/ Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/rurhlth/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 21. Senate Community Afairs References Committee. Senate Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Factors Aefcting the Supply of Health Services and Medical Professionals in Rural Areas. 2012. http://www.aph. gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/ Completed_inquiries/2010-13/rurhlth/report/index. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 22. Antioch KM. Submission to the Senate Standing Community Afairs Legislative Committee Inquiry into the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and four related Bills. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2013b. See Submission 107 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/Completed_inquir - ies/2010-13/agedcare/submissions. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 23. Senate Standing Community Afairs Legislative Report of the Committee Inquiry into the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and four related Bills. (Published by Australian Parliament). 2013b. http://www.aph. gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Afairs/ Completed_inquiries/2010-13/agedcare/index. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 24. Antioch KM. Submission to Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Inquiry on the Outcomes of the 42nd Meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) held on 1 April 2016. (Published by Parliament). 2016a. See Submission 7 2016 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/COAG/Submissions. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 25. Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Report of the Committee Inquiry on the Outcomes of the 42nd Meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) held on 1 April 2016. (Published by Parliament). 2016. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/COAG/Report. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 26. Antioch KM Submission to the Select Committee on Health inquiry into health policy, administration and expenditure. 2016b. See submission 204. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Health/Health/Submissions. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 27. Select Committee on Health inquiry into health policy, administration and expenditure Final report Hospital funding cuts: the perfect storm the demolition of Federal-State health relations 2014-2016. 2016. http:// www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Health/ Health/Final_Report. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 28. NHMRC. Procedures and requirements for meeting the 2011 NHMRC standard for clinical practice guidelines May 2011 Version 1.1 Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2011. http://www.nhmrc. gov.au/_lfies_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp133_nhmrc_proce - dures_requirements_guidelines_v1.1_120125.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 29. NHMRC. Using socioeconomic evidence in clinical practice guidelines Canberra National Health and Medical Research Council. 2002. https:// www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp89.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 30. NHMRC. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades of recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2009 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_lfies_nhmrc/lfie/guide - lines/stage_2_consultation_levels_and_grades.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 31. Polsky D. Does willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year bring us closer to a useful decision rule for cost-eefctiveness analysis? Med Decis Mak 25. 2005;6: 605-606 http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/25/6/605. full.pdf+html. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 32. https://www.york.ac.uk/che/research/teehta/thresholds/. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 33. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, Devlin N, Smith PC, Sculpher M. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost eefctiveness threshold Health Technology Assessment. Available on the NIHR Journals Library website. From the 19th of February 2015. http://www. journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 34. University of York Media Release Approval of new drugs by NICE is doing more harm than good. The NHS is paying too much for new drugs 19th February 2015. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/NICE%20 Threshold%20Press%20Release%20190215.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 35. Harris A, Hill S, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia. A retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(5):713-22. http://mdm. sagepub.com/content/28/5/713.short. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 36. Harris, A Li JJ, Yong K. What Can We Expect from Value-Based Funding of Medicines? A Retrospective Study? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:393-402. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0354-z. http://link.springer. com/article/10.1007%2Fs40273-015-0354-z. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 37. Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost eefctiveness? Health Econ Apr. 2010;19(4):422- 37. doi:10.1002/hec.1481.
    • 38. Drummond MF, de Pouvourville G, Jones E, Haig J, Saba G, Cawston H. A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France. Pharmaco Econ. 2014;32(5):509-20. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0144-z.
    • 39. Husereau D, Drummond MF, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS): explanation and elaboration: a report of the ispor health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:231-50. http://www.ispor.org/ValueInHealth/ShowValueInHealth. aspx?issue=3D35FDBC-D569-431D-8C27-378B8F99EC67. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). A guide to the methods of technology appraisal.London, July. 2013. http://www.nice. org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 41. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal. pmed.1000217. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 42. Langley P. Sunlit uplands: the genius of the NICE reference case. Innovat Pharm. 2016;7(2):1-6.
    • 43. Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care merging theory with practice. Oxford: OUP Oxford; 2006.
    • 44. Peacock S, Mitton C, Cromwell I. Structuring complex evidence and values using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) presentation in the organised session. Economic Guidelines for Clinical Guidelines 2013 International Health Economic Association (IHEA), Sydney; 2013.
    • 45. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-an introduction:report1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force value in health 1. 2016;9:1-1. 3 ISPOR Task Force Report. https://www.ispor.org/Multi-Criteria-DecisionAnalysis-guideline.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 46. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012;15:1172-81. http://www.ispor.org/ ValueInHealth/ShowValueInHealth.aspx?issue=B5983BEF-1145-4724- A446-24BFC33BE924. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 47. Marsh KI, Jzerman M, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision an analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force value in health. 2016;19:125-37. 2016 ISPOR Task Force Report. https://www.ispor.org/ Multi-Criteria-Decision-Analysis-guideline-2.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 48. Niessen LW. Inclusion of economic evidence in systematic reviews? Recommendations after reviews on health policy impact and best practices: presentation in the organised session on “Economic Guidelines for Clinical Guidelines”. Sydney: International Health Economic Association (IHEA); 2013.
    • 49. Niessen LW, Bridges J, Lau BD, Wilson RF, Sharma R, Walker DG, Frick KD, Bass EB. Assessing the impact of economic evidence on policymakers in health care-a systematic review. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC133- EF. 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114636/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 50. Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, Bridges J, Niessen L, Bass EB, Frick K. Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC132-EF. 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23230577. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 51. Frick K, Niessen L, Bridges J, Walker D, Wilson RF, Bass EB. Usefulness of economic evaluation data in systematic reviews of evidence. AHRQ Publication No. 2012;12(13)-EHC114-EF. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK114533/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
    • 52. Adams ME, et al. Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Med Care. 1992;30:231-43.
    • 53. Gerard K. Cost-utility in practice: a policymaker's guide to the state of the art. Health Policy. 1992;21:249-79.
    • 54. Sacristán JA, Soto J, Galende I. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies: utilization of a checklist. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27:1126-33.
    • 55. Clemens K, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995; 8: 169-74. http://link.springer.com/ article/10.2165/00019053-199508020-00008. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
    • 56. Russell LB, et al. The role of cost-eefctiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-eefctiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-7.
    • 57. Siegel JE, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-eefctiveness analyses. Panel on cost-eefctiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339-41.
    • 58. Drummond MF, Jeefrson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275-83.
    • 59. Ungar WJ, Santos MT. The pediatric quality appraisal questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Value Health. 2003;6(5):584-94.
    • 60. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-eefctiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41(1):32-44.
    • 61. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):240-5.
    • 62. Grutters JP, Seferina SC, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Kampen RJ, Goettsch WG, Joore MA. Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Value Health. 2011;14(5):777-84.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.